Title: Blue Vinyl, The World’s First Toxic Comedy Directors: Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold Release year: 2002
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Vinyl products seem perfectly harmless when on the side of a house but in reality this material is the most environmentally hazardous consumer product on earth when considered throughout its life cycle. Vinyl and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as it is more commonly seen are the source of more persistent toxic pollutants than any other single product in the world. The Greenpeace environmental organization calls vinyl “poison plastic.” This film follows the directors’ personal efforts to determine the effects and eventually replace the PVC plastic that was put up on her parents’ home.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Many of the sustainability problems associated with vinyl that are presented by this film are associated with the difficulty in handling and related health effects caused by its high toxicity. This material presents a number of ecological problems. One European doctor was quoted in the film saying that no safe level of PVC exists and even one molecule has a potential risk for cancer. As early as the autumn of 1972 it was determined by the vinyl industry that vinyl chloride at least in high doses was producing cancerous tumors in the ears and kidneys of rats. It was also determined to cause a rare cancer of the liver called angiosarcoma in rats at 250ppm exposure which was half the level of concentration that workers in Europe could be exposed to during this time. Enichem Corporation in Italy is one primary producer of PVC and a man with a neck microphone says everyone he used to know in a PVC producing department is either alive or “scarred” due to lung and or larynx cancer. Dioxin is known to be linked to cancer and bio-accumulates in our bodies. These effects are not entirely confined to industrial factories; these chemicals inevitably end up in the surrounding air and environment. A “bucket brigade” collected air samples around a town near a PVC plant and determined large concentrations of chloride in the air which is indicative that something is leaving these plants and affecting the air quality.
There are also organizational and technological sustainability problems associated with some of these ecological problems. When vinyl is burned it releases toxic fumes including dioxin into the surrounding area. Exposure to a single PVC fire can cause permanent respiratory damage according to the international association of firefighters. Meanwhile 75% of PVC use is in the construction industry building homes and offices making problematic fires in these areas even more dangerous to everyone around. Also there is little technology in the form of disposal of this material. 200,000 tons of PVC is incinerated in the US in trash burners every year emitting large amounts of toxic chemicals into the environment. It is very expensive and inconvenient to recycle vinyl and it is typically either incinerated or land filled. Coupled with the toxicity associated with creating and manufacturing the product our inability to properly dispose of this substance vinyl becomes very unsustainable.
There is also an economic sustainability problem as well. Chlorine producers have a large economic stake in the industry and will attempt to weaken arguments that vinyl is a bad product. This became evident following the studies mentioned above that were performed in the 1970s. Vinyl was a new product at this time so industry kept these facts s secret. In the meantime it was being used as a propellant for hairspray throughout the 70s and this product when used by women had the potential to expose them to higher levels than PVC material workers. This leak of knowledge about its effects could have killed the entire developing industry so agreements were made to keep this information under wraps throughout Europe and the U.S. Eventually its effects came out when four workers died in a BF Goodrich factory in Kentucky while working with PVC due to some rare liver cancer (angiosarcoma?). Limit for exposure in the workplace was reset to 1ppm and VC was slowly taken out of hairspray without a formal statement to the public about its use. It took these deaths and following public awareness before the vinyl industry acted on what could have been easily prevented. Also the vinyl industry currently spends large amounts of money on perpetuating their industry through public relations campaigns. They advertise that ½ of PVC is chlorine which is also in table salt, so any material with chlorine is safe since sodium is safe. Although NaCl is a stable edible compound chlorine gas is highly toxic and was even used as a weapon during World War I. They also donate millions of dollars to habitat of humanity every year and are a primary corporate sponsor of this program. People are showed “cheering” vinyl after construction of a new vinyl based built home. What would peoples’ opinions be if a similar budget was implemented to inform them about the toxic effects of the substance?
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found the story behind the Enechem Corporation to be persuasive in demonstrating the effect this product can have and the disregard that industry can have of these effects. Also the 31 vinyl executives of this corporation were explicitly put on trial for manslaughter for deaths of workers in their factories and dumping of PVC waste into the river. Since the rat studies of 1972 over one hundred people have died and over six hundred have experienced health problems linked to PVC production at Enechem alone. “It was a choking, murderous job and we didn’t know it” according to one former worker interviewed at the hearing. Although the executives have not been charged with these accusations this case may hold potential for corporate executives to begin to be held criminally liable for their actions which could bring about greater preemptive measures in using some of these toxic substances.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not very compelled by the ending of the film. Is removing already in place vinyl really a good idea? Most of the ecological impacts seem to occur during production and disposal of the product. She decided to remove vinyl from her home and replace it with a more sustainable alternative but arguably after its initially used the more sustainable action would be to utilize it for as long as possible and then replace it with an alternative. She also didn’t detail what she did with the vinyl she removed from her house. They showed her making informative tags to hand out to raise awareness about vinyl but is this what everyone should do with their own vinyl?
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
This film compelled me to seek out what products in and around my home were produced using vinyl. Obviously my PVC potato gun I built last summer has vinyl components but is their vinyl on the side of my house or within my furniture or vehicle? Also this past summer I completely resided a house with my Uncle. He didn’t use PVC but instead used a fiber cement siding or Hardi-plank paneling which is a composite material made of sand, cement and cellulose. I remembered he told me we had to be careful cutting it because breathing the particles is bad for your respiratory system so I was interested in looking into what the sustainability was of this product. I discovered this new type of siding is becoming increasingly popular and although occupant health is improved as it is non-combustible and does not emit volatile compounds after installation it still if fairly energy intensive as it is 50% concrete (other portions are 10% wood fiber and 40% silica flume which is an industrial waste). Respiratory problems can be created due to the fine particle nature of the silica but little cancerous effects are evident. This product still is largely unsustainable but could help eliminate some of the personal health problems caused by PVC siding use. http://www.jameshardie.com/
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think this film is perfect for everyone; especially home owners as most houses implement vinyl siding especially in the northeast where stucco siding isn’t popular. The director of the movie carried a piece of siding with her from her parents’ house throughout the film and overall the documentary was very comical and maintained a personal and relatable tone throughout. This film was atypical of most documentaries that I have watched in that somewhat of a plot developed around her mission to prove to her parents that the PVC siding on their house was a problem. This in my opinion was an effective tool in relating this problem to homeowners that would potentially watch the film increasing the chances that the viewer will think and act on the problem if they have the ability to do so. Those building a new home or renovating their siding are prime candidates to be effected by this movie.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests a number of possible and radical alternatives to the use of PVC siding on homes. These ranged from durable corn based compostable plastics to sustainable and reclaimed timbers to even siding created from petrified trees dredged from the Great Lakes to more common alternatives such as stucco. Most of these alternatives are either hard to procure or are significantly more expensive though than traditional vinyl siding. They also stress consumers as a point of intervention to the vinyl industry as they hold the power to make a dangerous product obsolete.
The director ended up using lumber from an old roof of a mill in NH that she accrued through a wood reclamation expert to replace the vinyl siding on her parents’ home. This was very costly. It was then stained with the least toxic blue stain she could find which was custom-ordered from Canada. To help bring about this solution a somewhat radical “green builder” from California named Patrick Hayes flew to her house as a consultant.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I think the film should have highlighted more practical solutions to vinyl and maybe what someone with strict housing budgets can do instead of implementing vinyl siding in their new home. Also although the personal vendetta aspect and comedy of the film were engaging to the viewer they also inevitably took away from the larger problem. I think they film should have highlighted that this PVC story is not a one material problem and that there are hundreds of products and chemicals out there which cause health effects to workers and continually pollute landfills and waste streams. The personal and comedy aspects in my opinion are likely to cause viewers to remember this film though and the findings that were presented.
Directors: Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold
Release year: 2002
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Vinyl products seem perfectly harmless when on the side of a house but in reality this material is the most environmentally hazardous consumer product on earth when considered throughout its life cycle. Vinyl and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) as it is more commonly seen are the source of more persistent toxic pollutants than any other single product in the world. The Greenpeace environmental organization calls vinyl “poison plastic.” This film follows the directors’ personal efforts to determine the effects and eventually replace the PVC plastic that was put up on her parents’ home.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Many of the sustainability problems associated with vinyl that are presented by this film are associated with the difficulty in handling and related health effects caused by its high toxicity. This material presents a number of ecological problems. One European doctor was quoted in the film saying that no safe level of PVC exists and even one molecule has a potential risk for cancer. As early as the autumn of 1972 it was determined by the vinyl industry that vinyl chloride at least in high doses was producing cancerous tumors in the ears and kidneys of rats. It was also determined to cause a rare cancer of the liver called angiosarcoma in rats at 250ppm exposure which was half the level of concentration that workers in Europe could be exposed to during this time. Enichem Corporation in Italy is one primary producer of PVC and a man with a neck microphone says everyone he used to know in a PVC producing department is either alive or “scarred” due to lung and or larynx cancer. Dioxin is known to be linked to cancer and bio-accumulates in our bodies. These effects are not entirely confined to industrial factories; these chemicals inevitably end up in the surrounding air and environment. A “bucket brigade” collected air samples around a town near a PVC plant and determined large concentrations of chloride in the air which is indicative that something is leaving these plants and affecting the air quality.
There are also organizational and technological sustainability problems associated with some of these ecological problems. When vinyl is burned it releases toxic fumes including dioxin into the surrounding area. Exposure to a single PVC fire can cause permanent respiratory damage according to the international association of firefighters. Meanwhile 75% of PVC use is in the construction industry building homes and offices making problematic fires in these areas even more dangerous to everyone around. Also there is little technology in the form of disposal of this material. 200,000 tons of PVC is incinerated in the US in trash burners every year emitting large amounts of toxic chemicals into the environment. It is very expensive and inconvenient to recycle vinyl and it is typically either incinerated or land filled. Coupled with the toxicity associated with creating and manufacturing the product our inability to properly dispose of this substance vinyl becomes very unsustainable.
There is also an economic sustainability problem as well. Chlorine producers have a large economic stake in the industry and will attempt to weaken arguments that vinyl is a bad product. This became evident following the studies mentioned above that were performed in the 1970s. Vinyl was a new product at this time so industry kept these facts s secret. In the meantime it was being used as a propellant for hairspray throughout the 70s and this product when used by women had the potential to expose them to higher levels than PVC material workers. This leak of knowledge about its effects could have killed the entire developing industry so agreements were made to keep this information under wraps throughout Europe and the U.S. Eventually its effects came out when four workers died in a BF Goodrich factory in Kentucky while working with PVC due to some rare liver cancer (angiosarcoma?). Limit for exposure in the workplace was reset to 1ppm and VC was slowly taken out of hairspray without a formal statement to the public about its use. It took these deaths and following public awareness before the vinyl industry acted on what could have been easily prevented. Also the vinyl industry currently spends large amounts of money on perpetuating their industry through public relations campaigns. They advertise that ½ of PVC is chlorine which is also in table salt, so any material with chlorine is safe since sodium is safe. Although NaCl is a stable edible compound chlorine gas is highly toxic and was even used as a weapon during World War I. They also donate millions of dollars to habitat of humanity every year and are a primary corporate sponsor of this program. People are showed “cheering” vinyl after construction of a new vinyl based built home. What would peoples’ opinions be if a similar budget was implemented to inform them about the toxic effects of the substance?
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I found the story behind the Enechem Corporation to be persuasive in demonstrating the effect this product can have and the disregard that industry can have of these effects. Also the 31 vinyl executives of this corporation were explicitly put on trial for manslaughter for deaths of workers in their factories and dumping of PVC waste into the river. Since the rat studies of 1972 over one hundred people have died and over six hundred have experienced health problems linked to PVC production at Enechem alone. “It was a choking, murderous job and we didn’t know it” according to one former worker interviewed at the hearing. Although the executives have not been charged with these accusations this case may hold potential for corporate executives to begin to be held criminally liable for their actions which could bring about greater preemptive measures in using some of these toxic substances.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I was not very compelled by the ending of the film. Is removing already in place vinyl really a good idea? Most of the ecological impacts seem to occur during production and disposal of the product. She decided to remove vinyl from her home and replace it with a more sustainable alternative but arguably after its initially used the more sustainable action would be to utilize it for as long as possible and then replace it with an alternative. She also didn’t detail what she did with the vinyl she removed from her house. They showed her making informative tags to hand out to raise awareness about vinyl but is this what everyone should do with their own vinyl?
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
This film compelled me to seek out what products in and around my home were produced using vinyl. Obviously my PVC potato gun I built last summer has vinyl components but is their vinyl on the side of my house or within my furniture or vehicle? Also this past summer I completely resided a house with my Uncle. He didn’t use PVC but instead used a fiber cement siding or Hardi-plank paneling which is a composite material made of sand, cement and cellulose. I remembered he told me we had to be careful cutting it because breathing the particles is bad for your respiratory system so I was interested in looking into what the sustainability was of this product. I discovered this new type of siding is becoming increasingly popular and although occupant health is improved as it is non-combustible and does not emit volatile compounds after installation it still if fairly energy intensive as it is 50% concrete (other portions are 10% wood fiber and 40% silica flume which is an industrial waste). Respiratory problems can be created due to the fine particle nature of the silica but little cancerous effects are evident. This product still is largely unsustainable but could help eliminate some of the personal health problems caused by PVC siding use.
http://www.jameshardie.com/
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think this film is perfect for everyone; especially home owners as most houses implement vinyl siding especially in the northeast where stucco siding isn’t popular. The director of the movie carried a piece of siding with her from her parents’ house throughout the film and overall the documentary was very comical and maintained a personal and relatable tone throughout. This film was atypical of most documentaries that I have watched in that somewhat of a plot developed around her mission to prove to her parents that the PVC siding on their house was a problem. This in my opinion was an effective tool in relating this problem to homeowners that would potentially watch the film increasing the chances that the viewer will think and act on the problem if they have the ability to do so. Those building a new home or renovating their siding are prime candidates to be effected by this movie.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The film suggests a number of possible and radical alternatives to the use of PVC siding on homes. These ranged from durable corn based compostable plastics to sustainable and reclaimed timbers to even siding created from petrified trees dredged from the Great Lakes to more common alternatives such as stucco. Most of these alternatives are either hard to procure or are significantly more expensive though than traditional vinyl siding. They also stress consumers as a point of intervention to the vinyl industry as they hold the power to make a dangerous product obsolete.
The director ended up using lumber from an old roof of a mill in NH that she accrued through a wood reclamation expert to replace the vinyl siding on her parents’ home. This was very costly. It was then stained with the least toxic blue stain she could find which was custom-ordered from Canada. To help bring about this solution a somewhat radical “green builder” from California named Patrick Hayes flew to her house as a consultant.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
I think the film should have highlighted more practical solutions to vinyl and maybe what someone with strict housing budgets can do instead of implementing vinyl siding in their new home. Also although the personal vendetta aspect and comedy of the film were engaging to the viewer they also inevitably took away from the larger problem. I think they film should have highlighted that this PVC story is not a one material problem and that there are hundreds of products and chemicals out there which cause health effects to workers and continually pollute landfills and waste streams. The personal and comedy aspects in my opinion are likely to cause viewers to remember this film though and the findings that were presented.